Hello … (and all included as recipients),

As always, it is good hearing from you.

You asked in your email if I have read Joe Price’s clarification to his teaching first introduced in his article, “The Forgotten Side of Romans 14.” Yes, I have read Joe’s clarification and like many who have read it, it only adds to the confusion and contradictions.

The simple facts are:

1. Joe wrote the article, “The Forgotten Side of Romans 14.”

2. In this material, Joe quoted Keith Greer and Keith’s appeal for tolerance relative to the doctrinal items he mentioned and commended Keith’s appeal (Keith mentioned divorcement for the Kingdom’s sake, number seven, a matter involving multiple causes for divorce).

3. I challenged Joe on Biblematters, an internet list to which Joe published his material, and an exchange on that list resulted.

4. Joe defended Mike Willis’ teaching on multiple causes for divorce by appealing to Romans 14. In the exchange, I taught that Romans 14 does not accept such doctrines as multiple causes for divorce and, moreover, Romans 14 does not require fellowshipping those who teach such.  Joe took issue as the opposing disputant in the exchange. Simple enough, isn’t it? Read the exchange at:

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR307.htm

Joe could have said, “I am sorry that I so badly wrote the article and I am responsible for intelligent brethren thinking that I placed such doctrines as multiple causes for divorce into the protective cover of Romans 14.” He did not!

The elders at Holly Street spent a number of months corresponding with Joe about his teaching, Joe never backed away from it, but adamantly defended his position.  Two inevitable choices exist concerning Joe:

A. Joe is deliberately teaching error and then trying to deceive by his double talk.

B. Joe lacks the intelligence and communication skill to be teaching at all.

I really wish that I could select “B” as the answer. However, based on much experience with Joe, I cannot. Joe is a classic example of a guy who started mixing with the wrong group (Mike Willis and the Guardian of Truth Foundation). He straddled the fence and now will not accept the consequences.  Joe is a sad case of one who sought to please all and be a middle-of-the-roader. The church does not need men like Joe Price in the pulpit, regardless of his particular classification, “A” or “B.”

In the Joe Price matter, the issues are simple. Watch how I answer the questions for which Joe just could not provide simple answers:

1. Is Mike Willis teaching error that allows one to unscripturally divorce a mate?

My answer: “Yes” (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9, I Cor. 7).

2. Does the teaching of more than one cause for divorce find placement in Romans 14 and thus allow doctrinal differences to exist in the circumstance of relative “unity”?

My answer: “No.” (The answer is, “no” because Romans 14 does not accept such doctrinal error.)

3. Is Mike Willis a false teacher who must be marked rather than defended?

My answer:  Mike Willis has demonstrated by his teaching and associated behavior that he is a false teacher who must be marked and not fellowshipped (Rom. 16: 17).

Joe has now added to his original false teaching, deceit, lying, and duplicity.

Thank you, …, for your interest in only supporting the truth and those who teach it. Please feel free to share this email with any interested in this shameful matter. Additional relevant material in www.bibletruths.net is, “Divorcement for the Kingdom’s Sake.” This is a PowerPoint sermon and is accessed from the Site Map page (enter through the door on the home page) and click on, “PowerPoint Sermons.” (Scroll down to “D” on the PowerPoint Sermons page.) It is sad that more and more preachers are defending Mike Willis, a man who will not even often defend his own teaching in honorable controversy! (Cp. Phili. 1: 7, 17, Jude 3.) Such is, alas, a regrettable example of partyism in the Lord's church!

Cordially,
Don Martin  dmartinbtbq@comcast.net (9-17-07)

Hello brother,

Thanks for the info update. I hope things work out well for you in Alabama. Don Wright has an outstanding article in the newest gospel truths. Be sure to read it...and spread it!

(7-17-07)

You may remember Gene Plyler who recently stepped down as an elder at the Lawrenceville GA congregation. He was diagnosed with cancer about a year ago…I met Gene first when…

I had remembered that he had written a tract on MDR which included the oldest refutation of the “mental divorce” position that I know of (though that term was not used). He told me it was actually his Dad (Woodrow) who had written that tract. He said the material was originally written in the 1960’s, and that he (Gene) had asked Truth Magazine publish it in the 70’s. But they said no. (do we wonder why?)

Gene told me Woodrow was responding to Ward Hogland’s teaching on MDR when he wrote what he did against the mental divorce position. (some things never change)

…Great family. (7-16-07)

Effective Immediately, my Email address is changed from … to …

Please note this in your Address Book. (6-1-07)

Some Gospel preachers are claiming the Christian husband or wife can depart from their mate for various and sundry reasons.

EXAMPLES:

1.      Running up bills on the credit card.

2.      Beating the children.

3.      To become or remain a Christian.

4.      To maintain physical or emotional health.

5.      Hostilities reach the point they must live apart.

6.      We do not have to become a doormat.

7.      Must have human judgment in these matters.

8.      Mate reached the end of the rope.

9.      Must separate to serve God.

I have about 4 questions for all who hold this view, when I have asked only one, you will be able to answer whether it is permissible to involve ourselves in willful, deliberate, presumptuous sin. Then answer the question—Is it possible to repent when we are not sorry before God, or we would do it again under similar circumstances. Would we teach others it is pleasing to God to willfully, premeditatedly commit sin against God.

QUESTIONS:

1.      Had you rather depart or be thrown into a fiery furnace?

2.      Had you rather depart or be thrown in the lions den?

3.      Had you rather depart or be killed when you touch the Ark of the Covenant?

4.      Had you rather depart or lie to God about you contribution?

Which command do you believe is pleasing to God to disobey?

1.      Thou shalt not kill.

2.      Let not the wife depart from her husband.

3.      Let not the husband put away his wife.

Do you believe we should encourage others to place themselves in a more vulnerable position by advising them to sin in disobeying a command of God?  When a Christian man or woman departs from their spouse, they are placing themselves in a position of potential wantonness, increasing  temptations to sin. Billy Ray Ford

“Conscience is one of God’s greatest gifts, and he that destroys it must answer for it.”
J. W. McGarvey (5-30-07)

Honesty - Truth - Error

There are many good people in the religious world who are honestly mistaken, but when a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, one of two things must happen: he will cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be HONEST. If he does not obey the truth he will no longer be honest. If he does obey the truth he will no longer be mistaken. Honesty and error must separate when truth comes along. No man can be honestly mistaken if he has heard the truth! - by Eugene Britnell  (5-29-07)

Brother Jeff,

Perhaps it would be best to conceal our names. I had a private written debate with brother … ask me not to make public.  So in all honesty I told him and gave him my word that I would not make our written discussion public. Out of respect for my word which I gave him and his request please do not make public our differences. Not yet at least! If or when it does become public then I would have no choice but to correspond thusly. Brother … and myself have been marked as false teachers by the … preachers. To my knowledge brother … has not marked us as false teachers. Not yet anyway! … In … brother … teachings have not found root. To the contrary the brethren have openly rejected it as did … and I here in ….

Once again thanks for your stand for the faith. (5-26-07)

It’s a great website, and it just seems to be getting better and better. Good work, my friend!

…The gospel meeting approacheth! Time for me to go take another look at Mentaldivorce.com.

The Lord bless and keep “you and yours” (5-26-07)

Jeff,

I now have high-speed internet service. Please update my address: …

Thanks and God bless, (5-25-07)

Jeff,

If only brethren would realize that on the day of judgment no one will be able to say to God:

“Well, it all depends on how you parse the syntax or define the words.”

On the day of judgment, I don’t want to base my hope of heaven on whether or not a certain word made a commandment MORE PERMISSIVE than it otherwise would be. And I also do not want others to base their salvation on my loophole magnifying glass. (5-25-07)

Jeff,

One of Wayne Partain’s paragraphs seemed to me to be a straw man, unless there is something going around that I know nothing about.

What was Wayne talking about when he wrote:

“If the case against this practice were an open and shut matter, as clear as baptism and the Lord’s Supper, brethren wouldn’t misuse Mark 10:11 to prove their contention. The very idea that when a man divorces his wife not for fornication and marries another he does NOT commit adultery against his first wife is ridiculous on the face of it.”

Are there brethren, other than the ultra-liberal, who are teaching this? (5-25-07)

Brother Jeff,

Thanks for the updates. It saddens my heart to see brother Partain take the unity in diversity position on the MDR issue. However, it does not surprise me since for many years he has taken the position on the Mental Marriage issue. He clearly teaches this in his book, “El Hogar” which is widely preached and accepted as pure gospel…

…I have asked brother Partain to not teach this damning doctrine on several occasions in which he replied, “it is the truth” … How twisted can you be.

Thanks for your updates.

In His love and mine, (5-25-07)

Jeff, Thanks for sending your articles on divorce to me. I really enjoy them! Also, please keep the … Church of Christ in your Prayers! Thanks so much!! (5-24-07)

It seems like I remember that Wayne Chappell had to leave the Warrior, AL congregation some years back because he believed in “mental divorce.”  I asked him for a debate of course <grin>, but he said no. I think this was before you started your site. (5-22-07)

Dear brother Jeff,

Outstanding articles and thank you again for your stance and love for the truth! Just a note: here are the latest versions of the articles on whether the divorced can remarry.

I was very surprised at the teaching of brother Partain. I thought that he was sound. (5-22-07)

Hello Jeff,

How much longer will you stay at the present work? … How are things with the family?

When I read Gene Frost’s answers to Willis’ misrepresentations, I see a group that was well practiced in the art of deception and falsehoods long before your effort to expose the mental-divorce issue. I’m sure you were like me in thinking it was a disappointing response that evolved out of pressure and exposure. But when I read how they have responded to Gene’s efforts, you see a well-rehearsed response that must have evolved long ago. And all the while we thought we were dealing with sincere honest men.

It sounds like you will land on solid ground at Skyline, (5-22-07)

Good Point! :

Now, let’s make the parallel to divorce. The writing of divorcement commanded in Deuteronomy 24:1 was for the married. Likewise, when the Lord spoke of those who “put away” (or repudiate) one’s divinely bound man/woman, He was clearly addressing those who sunder the “one flesh” (marriage) relationship (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3, 6, 9; cf. I Corinthians 7:10-11)! In fact, every single instance of divorce referenced in both the Old and New Testaments (whether authorized or condemned) is depicted as an action taken by one who is married. This is both Biblically confirmed and self-evident: Whether right or wrong, in a monogamous relationship, it is only possible for married people to divorce and unmarried people to marry. Any contention more or less than this is a perversion of God’s word, as well as an insult to brethren’s intelligence (Ephesians 4:14-15)! (5-22-07)

Well done again brother!

When will you be heading to Warrior? (5-21-07)

Hello brother,

Thanks for the encouragement… (5-21-07)

Hello brother,

I appreciate your willingness to stand for the truth on this important issue. Donald’s article and notes are very good. Keep it up! (5-19-07)

I noticed El Bethel is having Harry Osborne for meeting June 3-8. Isn’t Donnie one of the elders? What’s up with that?... (5-18-07)

“He Speaks out of Both Sides of His Mouth”

By Don Martin

English is one of the most colloquial and fluid languages of all. We have so many expressions that are replete with picturesque figurativeness. “He speaks out of both sides of this mouth” is describing a man who speaks contradictory things. Some of the American Indians, themselves great speakers in terms of figures and hyperboles, were heard using this and similar expressions. James addressed such a man in his following
statement:

“9: Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. 10: Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. 11: Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? 12: Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh” (Jas. 3).

Not long ago, I on several occasions witnessed contradictory speech. The serious thing about such speech is not just the misinformation, but the evident corrupt heart that produces such opposing language.

I read one email correspondence wherein a preacher was questioned by another as to the multiple causes for divorce doctrine that is catching on like wild fire these days. “Others are lying about what I teach, I teach only one cause for divorce,” said he. “Of course, we have to allow for the woman of the cruel man, she must have the recourse and the option
of divorce rather than having to live with such a brute, even though, he does not commit adultery.”

What do we say about such speech? Could it simply be an explainable accident or incident? Should we be more tolerant of such language, thinking that the speaker may have a communication deficiency?

During the same time period, I read the writings of a man who said: “I consider the current debates over what constitutes biblical divorcement as an utter waste of time and of no consequence.” Yet, this same man is preaching that all who do not conform to his teaching on the subject are false teachers that must be viewed as unworthy of fellowship, even swine they are…

I could go on and on, sighting examples and instances in which some have spoken contradictory things. No, I do not think we can explain such away by saying such is just an accident or lack of speaking skill. It is much more serious than these offered explanations. As James stated, such a contradictory circumstance involves an aberration and grotesque condition. There is a serious flaw that is systemic in nature and origin and not just surface or shallow. Brethren and churches are too often in a state of confusion over such men. These men are usually characterized by verbosity, as it often takes much speech to mislead and cover up such intentional deceit. “He speaketh out of both sides
of his mouth” is not found verbatim in the scriptures, but the idea is certainly present, as seen…

Preachers, especially, should be able to forthrightly, clearly, and without ambiguity reply to basic questions and teaching situations. If they lack such skill, they do not need to be preaching. However, for the most part, I say based on observation, such men exemplify a large and serious measure of corruption and deceit, speaking out of both sides of their mouth as circumstances dictate (cp. 2 Cor. 4: 2). I had one to tell me regarding a preacher whom he has questioned relative to a certain doctrinal stance: “When I asked him about what you had said his position was he said, ‘Don Martin is telling lies, I do not believe what Martin says I do.’” However, this man read an exchange that I had with the preacher and told me, “Don, ....he just simply lied to me!” There is far too much of this sort of conduct going around these days! Our speech reveals who and what we are, speaking out of both sides of our mouth says we are dishonest and deceitful (cp. Matt. 12: 34f.). Moreover, lying is a sin (Col. 3: 9).

Cordially,
Don Martin  dmartinbtbq@comcast.net (5-16-07)

Many thanks Jeff!

…how’s things going for you? Praying for good things for you. (5-3-07)

Dear Jeff,

…very glad to know we are in agreement about these issues… (4-23-07)

Hello brother,

It was great getting to know you. I appreciate your loyal stand for the truth…They are looking for a preacher who is willing to contend (Jude 3)… Godspeed. (4-11-07)

Thank you for the note. Keep the sword ready! Love Billy (4-6-07)

Dear Jeff,

Hope you have a safe trip to … Isn’t that where Mike Willis and Co. are located? … I told … and he laughed and said to tell Jeff to be on guard, that Mike Willis might convert you ... He is a BIG kidder and we KNOW that would be an impossibility!

Take care and may God continue to be with you and your family as you take a stanch stand for the TRUTH!!

Please don’t move too far away :( boo hoo! (4-5-07)

Thanks bro! I’ll take a look! (4-4-07)

Thanks man! I’m going to work on this.... I agree with what you are showing. You’re right. I do need to cogitate on it for a little while…

Anyway – like what you’ve done... agree... I’ll just think about how … may try to deal with it… (4-4-07)

Well said... you’re doing a good job with this...How’s the search going? (4-2-07)

Hey Jeff,

We will pray that you find a good group to work with.  Keep up your work on the mental divorce issue.

Also, the … group outside … will soon be losing their preacher. … wants to relocate back to …  One of the “pillars of the church” … was always impressed with your stand on the divorce issue.

We’re setting up for our Gospel Meeting in … June 8, 9, and 10th. I believe David McKee will be a great speaker! We hope to have you next year.

Keep up the good work, (3-26-07)

Jeff...

I would LOVE to have you come out here to …, if we can find a slot for you. Unfortunately, the church in … just made a decision, about a month ago, to bring in a fellow from … That would have been a GREAT church, with faithful elders and well-grounded in the truth… (3-25-07)

Dear Jeff,

… WOW!!! What a busy schedule you’ve had ... We are thankful to God that you have found a location that you can work with the people of God and be appreciated and make a difference in the Kingdom of our Lord. I have never heard of Warrior, AL., but it certainly describes you in the work you do in the Kingdom ...

... Thank God for men like you and … that are not afraid to hold men accountable for their actions and words!! (5-9-07)

Jeff, … I appreciate you more than you know... Thanks … (5-9-07)

False Teaching 101

By Stephen Harper

In the religious realm, there are some men who would have us believe they are speaking the truths of God’s Word but would be more properly identified as the “false teachers” they are. I know that is a ‘label’ that some individuals do not like to hear, but it is a Scriptural one (cf. II Peter 2:1). It seems the problem some have in calling anyone a ‘false teacher’ comes from an apparent misunderstanding about what makes one a ‘false teacher,’ but it is rarely a problem of identifying the content of what he is teaching. Right now, some are arguing that we can only know a ‘false teacher’ if we know his motives, but if that were true then we mere humans could never identify one as a ‘false teacher’ since no man can know the motives of another unless they reveal it themselves.  [And when is the last time you heard anyone stand up and say, “Before I begin, I just want everyone to know I have ulterior motives behind the words I am about to say”?]

I believe honest men will admit that a “false teacher” is not so hard to identify as some might think, but that will not be the point of today’s study. Today, I would like us to consider some of the tactics of those who are propagating error. I believe this is an important study because it seems many unbelievers and even brethren are being led astray by some of the tactics we will discuss today, and are apparently unaware they have been deceived or, more correctly, duped. Some are unwittingly helping foster and propagate error, believing it to be truth!

The apostle Paul warned the Corinthian brethren to forgive and reaffirm their love for the brother whom they had chastened for wrongdoing, as Paul himself had already done, “lest Satan should take advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices” (II Corinthians 2:6-11). Something as ‘simple’ as discipline can be used by Satan to divided brethren unnecessarily and, if that is true, how much more when he uses false teaching to divide brethren unnecessarily? We would do well to know how he and his ministers operate so we can more easily recognize them, expose them, and take precautionary steps to avoid them.

Device #1: Redirect attention to the one who questions what is being taught. [This can be done in several ways.] If the false teacher’s doctrine is being questioned, he might say, “You are only teaching the traditional teachings, not Scripture,” or [stated another way], “That’s church of Christ doctrine.” He will call truth [Bible teachings and Bible passages quoted verbatim] “tradition” to try to get people to believe it is of human invention and does not come from God, diverting attention away from the fact his teaching is without Scriptural basis. This is a common fallacy of argument [diversion] and provides an easy way out of having to explain and defend one’s own teaching [get the audience to look at someone else]. I have noted from my own experience that this is a favorite tactic of those who teach errant positions on marriage, divorce and remarriage. I also find it very revealing that they only make that accusation on this subject and not on any other, such as baptism, stealing, or murder. I can’t recall anyone accusing another man of teaching “the traditional position on murder” but I have seen several men accused of teaching “the traditional position on marriage, divorce, and remarriage” [whatever that is]. Often, they will not even give a straight answer or a defense for what they are teaching — just accusations about what others are teaching. That is no way to find truth!

Another way attention may be diverted to the questioner is by the false teacher impugning the motives of the questioner and attacking his character. This, too, is a fallacy of argument [ad hominem] which diverts attention away from the subject of dispute and prevents anyone from reaching a reasoned understanding of truth. Often, at the same time the false teacher is impugning motives and calling names, he complains about the questioner impugning his motives [when only the doctrine he teaches is mentioned] and calling him names [even when it is his actual name]. To see brethren resort to these strategies is an outright shame and should be disgusting to true believers!

Device #2: Call the opposition ‘extremists.’ This is a favorite tactic in political circles, and one being used more frequently among brethren. Why? Again, it is an easy way to divert attention away from the subject of dispute or the false teacher himself, and onto those questioning the content, application, or consequences of his teachings. If someone disagrees with a teaching or practice and sound reasons are given, those who teach the false doctrines [knowing they cannot defend their teaching or practice from Scripture] will simply label the opposition as ‘extremists’ who are on the outer fringes of sanity and reason. This was used by brethren 40-60 years ago when they tried to defend church-supported institutions and I have found that some brethren today are now using the same tactic when they seek to defend privately-supported human institutions that are doing the work of the local church. Why can’t we simply discuss the issue and leave the name-calling out of it? That will never help anyone to reach a sound and reasoned conclusion! It is a source of division and bitter feelings between brethren, though!

Device #3: ‘I’m still studying it.’ If I teach on any subject, I would expect that some might disagree with something I have taught. I might even mistakenly teach error, though I do not intend to do so or plan on it ever happening. But if someone ever challenged me about what I was teaching, I would imagine no one would be satisfied with the response, “Well, I'm glad you asked, but I’m not going to get into a discussion on this subject because I’m still studying it.”

Sadly, I have heard this very response on a couple of occasions by men who had been propagating error but who also did not want to take responsibility for what they were teaching, or didn’t feel they owed anyone an explanation about what they had taught; they simply wanted to teach their errors and go about their merry way, moving on and refusing to answer any further questions. Friends and brethren, this is nothing but a “cop out.” It is deception, pure and simple, because while they have been “studying” for decades, they continue teaching their doctrines the whole time as if they were convicted it was truth. Only when they are questioned do they suddenly feel unsure, and then claim the high ground of “not wanting to cause division.” Meanwhile, the men who question them are maligned as “divisive” for simply trying to get a straight answer. For shame!

Friends and brethren, the tactics we have covered today are not new, and they will not go away anytime soon. As often as truth is taught, there will be someone to preach error right alongside it, but the false teacher [God’s label, not mine] will always try to present himself in a favorable light while simultaneously trying to slander, malign, and impugn those who question him. Elijah was called a “troubler of Israel” by King Ahab — the real troublemaker (I Kings 18:17, 18); the Sanhedrin accused the apostles of wrongly blaming them for the death of Jesus, when they gladly welcomed it at the time (Acts 5:28; Matthew 27:25); and Paul and his cohorts were accused of turning the world upside down and rebelling against the Roman government by envious and unbelieving Jews (Acts 17:5-7). Please note that in all cases mentioned, the false teachers and persecutors were not interested in sitting down and having a rational discussion so all could come to a reasoned conclusion and discover the truth!

We should not be surprised at the tactics of false teachers because Peter has revealed some of their ways (II Peter 2). Our duty is to expose them for what they are and keep standing for truth. (5-7-07)

Jeff, you will be about 45 min away from me. Look forward to meeting with you when you move to Alabama. Here’s my contact info:

My home is … Cell is … (5-7-07)

Jeff,

Here is the directory.

We are all very excited about you all coming to work with us here at Skyline Drive.

Thanks, (5-7-07)

Fellows,

… I just made the below post to an Internet discussion list. Once again, I just do not know how so many preachers who know the truth are not speaking out against the many innovations being introduced in the church today. I, frankly, do not respect these men and such creates alienation between them and me. There are so few who are coming forward and entering the heat of the battle, it is sad! Mike Willis recently commented in Truth Magazine that the Internet is where the issues of today and the forming of respective positions is taking place. Yet, there are so few who are taking the time and willing to receive the attendant abuse in entering these exercises… (5-5-07)

Dear sister Cara,

Thank you for the email and the encouraging words in our phone conversation.

It is so encouraging to have you and Jeff standing for truth without compromise. We are so thankful and keep you in our prayers always.

Your brother and sister-in-Christ, (4-27-07)

The Simple Truth About Unity

By Gene E. Frost

The simple truth is that the Bible, God’s word, and the Bible alone, contains the answer to our problems about fellowship, unity and division. It is the divine key to unity. We do not need smarter men or a new-fangled, higher hermeneutic; we need men with greater faith and an old-fashioned, deeper trust.

The Simplicity of Unity

We unhesitatingly and confidently affirm that the unity of the faith is a unity of agreement as to the truth. That means the truth can and should be understood (Eph. 5:17), and understood alike (different understandings equate to some misunderstandings). Unity is in Christ. This means no organization, plan or doctrine that is not of Christ, that is not in his gospel, can be set forth as any part of the ground common to believers.

Confusing the Issue

Discordant sounds are expected from sectarian sources, but it is distressing and alarming when they are heard from erstwhile gospel preachers. Two ideas are now frequently emphasized, and in both there is a germ of truth, but both are deliberately promoted at the expense of pure and simple gospel precepts for unity.

(1) It is said that each local church determines who it will fellowship. This quite properly means that no alliance of preachers, school or paper can make brotherhood determinations or issue a creedal basis for fellowship. This is true. But the implication is that certain doctrines do not constitute the divine standard by which an individual or church is to make its determinations.

For example, when a specific subject comes up, and one aborts a Bible discussion by saying, “Each church makes its own decision,” it implies that each church is at liberty to decide as it pleases. That’s like interrupting a discussion on baptism by saying, “Each person must decide for himself.” That is true. But it is also true that no church or individual has the right to decide anything contrary to Scripture. If they do, though no other church or individual has the right to usurp their autonomy, they are still wrong! So the need of the hour is to study, believe, practice, preach and proclaim what Scripture says! The fact that we all decide for ourselves does not change the standard for fellowship, and should never abort a Bible discussion.

(2) “Romans 14 describes differences that should be allowed. We must tolerate different interpretations or we will wind up meeting in a bunch of telephone booths.” This is the voice of ignorance about Romans 14 coupled with the absence of conviction about divine truth.

Instead of emphasizing that fellowship and unity are based upon gospel truth, and urging fervent studies and brotherly discussions, these two ideas are being promoted to the stifling of study and to the justifying of gross departures from the faith.

Both of them, as is the case with most error, contain a germ of truth, but then completely mislead the hearer. It’s like saying everybody makes mistakes, and then finishing by saying we should not worry about repentance. The fact of mistakes, differences of understanding about something, and the fact that each church determines its own fellowship as opposed to some hierarchy doing it, does not change one simple fact – fellowship is in the light, and to claim it in darkness is to lie (I John 1:6-7), and unity with men without fellowship with God is worthless.

Conclusion

We must go back to the divine formula. It will work. It really will. (4-18-07)

Thanks, Jeff. (4-16-07)

Your advice is superb—focus on what GOD thinks, and the realization (this is inferred by you, I believe) that God cares not a whit about “aesthetics”, but he is profoundly concerned with the proclaiming of and adherence to “book, chapter and verse”. Thanks so much for the good advice and the prayers, which are far more valuable than bars of gold.— (4-13-07)

Brother Jeff:

For the first time in my life, I am to preach a gospel meeting … It is a very strong congregation in terms of love for the truth, even though we are very much a small group… (4-11-07)

Good work again... (4-11-07)

Hi Jeff,

…I have a quick question for you on MDR. Have you ever heard of the doctrine of putting the Gospels in with the Old Testament to get around Matthew 19? Some are saying the New Testament Doctrine doesn’t begin until Acts 2…

Thanks, (4-7-07)

Hello Everyone,

This is an article taken from the book entitled, “The Renewing of Your Mind” pages 343-348.

This was a presentation by Greg Gwin at the first Truth Magazine Annual Lectures, July 12-16, 2004 in Bowling Green, Ky. I was present!

Open Forum: Mental Divorce

Greg Gwin

The ad for this session reads: Open Forum: The Role of Civil Government in Divorce/Remarriage (Mental Divorce). However, I want it to be understood that I am NOT here to discuss the role of Civil Government in divorce and remarriage. In fact, those who suggest that the current controversy that has been labeled “mental divorce” centers on “the role of civil government in divorce/remarriage,” either: (1) do not understand the subject, or (2) are trying to divert the attention of people to a side issue.

I am here to deny the position advocated by Weldon Warnock when he wrote:

But someone asks: “What about a woman who is put away (divorced) by a man simply because the man no longer wanted to be married? Fornication is not involved and the woman repeatedly tried to prevent the divorce, but to no avail. After a couple of years the man marries another woman. Is the ‘put away’ woman then free to marry?” She certainly is, if she puts away her husband for fornication. She would have to do this before God in purpose of heart since the divorce has already taken place, legally speaking. She could not go through the process of having a legal document charging her husband with ‘adultery,’ but God would know…” (Searching The Scriptures, 11/85)…

…Concerning this, brother Rader wrote: “Shall we allow people to divorce and remarry and live in adultery and never say a word? Shall we let the preachers and teachers who encourage such relationships pass without notice? ... Those whose teaching causes others to become adulterers and adulteresses cannot be fellowshipped anymore than the adulterer or adulteress themselves” (Divorce & Remarriage: What Does The Text Say? p. 145)

I agree with brother Rader’s conclusion. (4-3-07)

Jeff,

The guy I sent your letter to yesterday (and copied you on) is … You may remember … as being very strong against mental divorce …

… phone number is … if you want to call him yourself. (4-1-07)

I like your replies brother.... good job! (3-31-07)

Good work, brother! Your clear presentation and appeal only to what the scriptures teach is enlightening and shows the utter fallacy of the error that they are teaching.

In reading brother Wallace’s arguments, I am hearing the same appeal to unit-in-diversity that characterizes the denominational world, as well as those who are teaching error in the Lord’s church!

Did you get the document with the articles that forwarded to you for publication on mental divorce?

We love you and are praying for you! (3-31-07)

Jeff,

… I have really enjoyed getting to know you, your wife and one of your sons. You have been a huge encouragement to us as a family and individually and we appreciate your strong bible teaching and advocacy for the truth … (3-31-07)

JEFF, I GOT A COPY OF YOUR E MAIL FROM … HERE, AT … CHURCH OF CHRIST,  IN … THIS CONGREGATION IS AROUND 15 YEARS OLD. WE SPLIT OFF FROM ANOTHER GROUP WHO EMBRACED A MAN WHO … AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT HE HAD PUT AWAY HIS WIFE IN HIS MIND. IN OTHER WORDS, MENTAL DIVORCE … WE HAVE TRIED UNSUCCESFULLY TO GET THE OTHER GROUP TO DICIPLINE THIS MAN SO WE CAN GET BACK TOGETHER, BUT NO ONE HAS THE FORTITUDE TO DO SO…

THANKS (3-30-07)

Well said brother. Put the fire of truth to him. (3-28-07)

Brother Belknap,

… First and foremost we want someone who is sound and willing to stand firm on such things as divorce and remarriage and on discipline … (3-27-07)

Hey Jeff,

My name is … I currently am preaching for the … church of Christ in … I don’t know you personally, but I have certainly read some of your material and have appreciated the website you have maintained… (3-25-07)

Cara,

I looked at that web site and looked at the sights they had listed… He is the one that I met a couple of months ago in … that was familiar with Jeff’s website and knew that … had written articles and said that he was happy that the battle was being fought and disturbed by how many were “taken” with the false notions.

Anyway, hope it goes well. (3-17-07)

I received this post this evening and I thought I would share it with you guys. Some other preacher sent it to me to show what Mike actually preaches on this subject …

Mike you should be ashamed of yourself for all of the false info that you are putting out.  Your learning has made you mad!

I would like to know if all of the GOT people on this post believe what Mike is teaching here? If you are willing please send to me your response to my question…

When Is Divorce A Sin?

Mike Willis

Under subtopic number two Mike wrote and preached:

                         a.       A person may have to divorce his mate to break an unscriptural marriage (Matt. 19:9). In this case, one is divorcing for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

                         b.       A person may have to leave his mate to become or remain a Christian (Luke 18:29-30; 1 Cor. 7: 15; Matt. 10:34-48; Luke 14:26). In this case, one is   divorcing for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

                         c.       A person may be in a marriage relationship in which his mate runs up bills which he has no intention of paying. In this case, one’s responsibility to God to pay one’s bills would demand that he not be supportive of his mate’s ungodly behavior (Rom. 13:8).

                         d.       A mate may be abusive to the children (beating). A person has a responsibility to bring up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:1-4). To fulfill that responsibility, may require him to leave his mate to provide for the children.

                         e.       There are some cases in which one must leave to have physical and emotional health. One’s obligation to serve God would require him to preserve his physical and emotional well being.

                         f.        Sometimes a couple becomes so alienated from each other, the hostilities have reached such a point, that they must live apart.

                                     (1)  Cf. Prov. 21:9; 25:24; 1 Cor. 7:15-16.

                                     (2)  We cannot force them to stay together.

                                     (3)  The Scriptures do not teach a person that he must become a doormat to his partner to keep the marriage together. A person who becomes another’s doormat will do more to destroy his mate’s love and respect for him than about anything else he can do. A person has to maintain his own self-esteem to have proper Bible love. One is to love his neighbor “as himself” and the husband is to love his wife “as his own body” (Matt. 22:39; Eph. 5:33).

                         g.         Obviously, there is going to have to be left some room for judgment in these matters. (Those who allow a “separation” but not a “divorce” agree that there are some areas of human judgment that we must leave for each other.)

      C.   Sometimes we place the blame for divorce on the wrong shoulders – we blame the mate who has reached the end of his rope in tolerating an intolerable situation and in his desperation has filed for a divorce, rather than blaming the one guilty of the ungodliness who created the intolerable circumstances.

      D.  If one must separate from his mate in order to serve his God, that is exactly what he should do! (3-14-07)

… Please change our email address in your address book. (3-14-07)

Don Martin to Joe Price and the email circle:

I have waited several days and I have not observed a replied from Joe Price. Joe has persisted in accusing me of misrepresenting him relative to multiple causes for divorce. I have denied that I have misrepresented Joe, but in all fairness I asked him two simple and relevant questions regarding which if he had answered, he would have been clearly understood. I pointed out to Joe that to accuse one of misrepresentation when there has been none, is to misrepresent. To persist in such involves more than just misunderstanding.

I do not know why Joe has not answered these questions. Here they are again:

1). Joe Price, do you believe and teach that there is only one acceptable cause for divorce, the cause of fornication and that to divorce for some other reason is against the scriptures, thus sin?

2). Joe Price, do you fellowship and defend those who teach divorce for a cause other than fornication?

These are not trick questions or incapable of being answered. Let me go first and answer them in the fewest words possible and set the example for Joe.

1). Don Martin, do you believe and teach that there is only one acceptable cause for divorce, the cause of fornication and that to divorce for some other reason is against the scriptures, thus sin?

Don’s answer: “Yes” and “yes.” (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9, I Cor. 7: 2f.)

2). Don Martin, do you fellowship and defend those who teach divorce for a cause other than fornication?

Don’s answer: “No.”

I should have thought that if Joe really believed that I had misrepresented him, he would have gladly answered the two questions. I know I would have…

We teach one cause for divorce and we, like Jesus, preclude any subsequent circumstance that can allow for a “second” or mental divorcement and marriage to another (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9, I Cor. 7: 2f.). While Joe thought we were in error, he continued for a long time to take our support and say nothing.

Needless to say, I have been very disappointed with Joe. One reason doctrinal differences are not settled is because of all these games we play and refusal to honestly face the issues.

Should Steven J. Wallace again childishly send out an email of his anterior type, I have no intention of coming down to his level. However, if Joe does answer the two questions, I reserve the right to reply.

Thank all of you again for your patience and for serving as witnesses to this correspondence. Errorists must be exposed and such correspondence is one way of doing it (see Joe’s response and my reply below). (3-6-07)

Fellows,

Mike Willis is now getting heat from within and without. There are still a few men in the wider GOT circle that are concerned…

Don,

I looked at Steven’s PowerPoint sermon on multiple causes and it made me sick. He not only is a false teacher, but the guy is totally abusive and out of control in his treatment of David Watts and you.

Don Martin,

The arrogance of the GOT preachers is becoming more apparent to many brethren. Things are not going the way they thought it would. You are among the few who are applying heat to these men and you must continue.

Brother Don,

I looked at Steven’s PowerPoint material and I was shocked. There is no question about what he and others are teaching. (3-2-07)

Don Martin to Steven J. Wallace, Joe Price, and additional recipients:

Steven has replied (below), but no word from Joe Price, yet.

I have charged Steven J. Wallace with teaching multiple causes for divorce and have invited Steven to debate (written) this matter. Here are the suggested propositions:

“The scriptures teach (NT) that there is only one cause for divorce (performed by the innocent mate) and that cause is the fornication of the guilty mate, while the marriage is in tact.”

Affirm:  Don Martin

Deny:  Steven J. Wallace, Joe Price?

Let’s do something a little different and have the second worded:

“Being mentally and emotionally abused, bills run up, and spiritually discouraged by a mate is scriptural reason to divorce the mate.”

Affirm:  Steven J. Wallace, Joe Price?

Deny:  Don Martin

Steven and Joe, we can fine turn the propositions, but let’s have your permission and agreement. O.K.? These many readers will serve as witnesses. … (3-2-07)

Fellows,

I am having good response to the email situation yesterday in which a debate challenge was extended to Wallace and Price. A number have already requested the PowerPoint presentation Steven has been using and has available… (3-1-07)

Brother Jeff,

I too, believe there is a difference between physical adultery and mental adultery concerning the cause for divorce. I want to do an in depth study on this issue and thought I could also benefit from the studies of others. It does not seem to be a topic discussed very often (Just my impression – I had trouble finding brethren’s study on it.). I asked the question because there was a person who wrote me in my response to my article on the deception of porn. This person asserted that when your spouse partakes of pornography, this could be grounds for divorce based on Mat. 5:28.

I appreciate the comparison you made to the teaching of Mark 7:21. That is an important passage to be included in all this. I found one writer of an article who said this concerning Mat. 5:28. “Such lust does not provide grounds for divorce any more than getting angry subjects one to the death penalty (Matt. 5:22).” Interesting and helpful comparison.

Thanks for your help and charts. I will continue to study and share with you my reply when I am done.

Your servant in Christ, (3-1-07)

Brother Jeff,

Do you have information, studies, debates, etc. on the doctrine that teaches that one may put away his/her mate for fornication if they commit “adultery in the heart” (Mat. 5:28). Thank you for your help.

Your servant in Christ, (3-1-07)

Jeff,

I appreciate your site very much. Thank you. There is such a wealth of valuable information and study material! … (3-1-07)

Please make this change of my email address in your address book.

… is now changed to … Thank you! (2-28-07)

Don Martin bidding Joe Price, Steven J. Wallace and all of you a good day:

Steven and Joe have sent emails to each other and others, emails which I would like to briefly address. At the end of my comments, I shall extend a debate offer and propositions to each or both of these men.

Steven wrote, first issuing his salutation and then a quote from me, followed by his comments:

“My good Brother Joe Price and All:

“Addendum: While I do not teach that in the case of marriage or the converse, divorce, applicable civil protocol is within and of itself marriage or divorce, respectively, I certainly teach that civil protocol is part of each. Society in general has had such civil procedure in place, one reason to establish intent, fact, and record. Without such, there is utter chaos. To charge as some have, ‘You teach the race to the court house doctrine’ is totally false, prejudicial, and deflective.” Don Martin

Amazing indeed! How wordy some have to be to seemingly make a simple point? Civil protocol is not marriage or divorce but it is absolutely required in.

Don comments:

“Wordy,” my, my, such does not even begin to compare to Steven J. Wallace’s PowerPoint presentation that consists of eighty slides in which Steven is teaching multiple causes for divorce.  If you would like to have this presentation, let me know.

Steven continued:

That’s fine, but the core issue is, does civil procedure regarding marriage or divorce have authority to supplant what is written in the Bible? What of the civil protocol of saying “I divorce you” three times to make the divorce final? Would Don’s understanding of civil protocol forbid or permit a woman who was divorced by her fast talking fornicating mate to every remarry? Where does civil protocol gain authority to displace what is written by God? Where does the speed of the wicked displace the right of the righteous?

Don reflects:

Please observe the emotional arguments used by Steven J.  Steven, where in scripture do emotional and situational appeals ever “supplant what is written” relative to divorcement and marriage to another? All I have consistently taught for as long as you are old is that germane civil procedure is a part of biblical marriage and divorcement. I say this primarily because Christians are to comply with the civil laws and in so doing, such further helps to establish intent and fact (cp. I Pet. 2: 13). Even you, Steven and Joe, as well as a growing number of men, must arrive at what constitutes marriage and/or divorce, admit it or not. This floating, nebulous idea relative to what is involved in biblical marriage and divorcement is nonsensical and utterly chaotic.

Steven proceeded to say:

I am disappointed that this is the best that our disgruntled brother could do. Sitting around and dreaming up false charges that we teach is pitiful and wicked.

Don remarks:

Steven J. Wallace, here is the charge: You teach multiple causes for divorcement, a doctrine contrary to what the scriptures teach (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9, I Cor. 7: 2f.). This is the precise charge that I have made and, again, issue. Your efforts to deflect and lead people off on an excursion will not work.

Steven quotes me and then comments:

“These men know as well as I do that just about all of these people divorcing for causes other than fornication will marry another (Matt. 19: 9). What these men are not now telling is that many of them, if not all, have beliefs that will even allow these divorcing people to marry another later, while they have a living mate.” DM

Come on … how is it that we “know all these people divorcing for causes other than fornication will marry another”?

Don reflects:

Perhaps I have given these men too much credit. All statistics and facts of life show that the chances are most who divorce will marry another. In Steven’s haste to shout foul, he even denies this basic and established fact.

Steven continued:

BTW, who has “beliefs that will even allow these divorcing people to marry another later.” There are no names, no references, no quotations, no answers, but just the same ole flammable false rhetoric to stir people up to foolish, strife stricken accusations.

Don answers:

All men who hold various forms of the mental divorcement position. How about you, Steven? Since you do not evidently see any civil connection in biblical marriage, I presume, and divorce, I know, I can easily see how you could say, “Since the first divorce was not scriptural, and Bill has now committed adultery, Jane now has the right to “really” put away Bill due to his adultery and Jane can marry another.” Why would you not say this, Steven? Or, “Bill terribly mistreated Jane and then divorced her with all her dependant babies, after Bill commits adultery, Jane can “really” put him away for fornication.” Steven, are you saying you would not say this?

If you will agree to debate me, we shall see precisely where you stand in this matter, believe me.

Steven closes:

Call it what you will, but Don’s material is still the “he who is fastest to the courthouse determines who can/cannot remarry.”

Don answers:

I have abundant proof as to Steven J. Wallace teaching multiple causes for divorcement (about the same teaching as Mike Willis). Also, I have never charged Steven or Joe with presently teaching polygamy.

Where is Steven’s proof that I teach it simply comes down to who first signs the divorce papers? Steven has made a serious charge, will he prove it? If you are really Steven’s friend and brother, hold him to proving it and do not let him get away with false accusation.

The debate that I believe Steven will agree to will bring out all these nuances and positions and will fully present each of us in these matters. It will be a debate free of childish diatribe and games.

Joe Price wrote:

Check out DM’s “Addendum” at the end –

Addendum: While I do not teach that in the case of marriage or the converse, divorce, applicable civil protocol is within and of itself marriage or divorce, respectively, I certainly teach that civil protocol is part of each. Society in general has had such civil procedure in place, one reason to establish intent, fact, and record. Without such, there is utter chaos. To charge as some have, “You teach the race to the court house doctrine” is totally false, prejudicial, and deflective. Talk about “deflective” ... Amazing!

Question for DM: When did “civil protocol” become a part of marriage and divorce? (Scripture, please)

Don answers:

Romans 13: 1-7, I Peter 2: 13, etc. Why are these men so apparently afraid of documentation and establishment of fact? Their teaching of civil detachment results in many sad situations. I recall having a Bible study with a couple and finally asking if they were husband and wife (something made me wonder). The man said, “See the picture of our baby on the wall.” I waited. The woman said, “Brother Martin, as to your question as to whether we are husband and wife, I do not really know. We were never married and he has never even said if he thinks we are married, even common law married.” I felt so sorry for her. I turned and asked the man, “Do you believe you are married, even according to the common law provision of this state?” “No,” was his answer. She broke down in tears and my reply to her was, “You need to get out of this shack up situation and restore some dignity to your life!”

Many of the men who believe in “mental divorcement” and multiple causes, also, consistently, I might add, accept the no civil in marriage. We shall see what Steven has to say in the debate.

Brethren, friends, and interested readers, I have dealt with the doctrine of “no civil connection” for many years. I know it inside and out, doctrinally, and, what is even sadder, I know the chaos and heartache these fellows are causing. This doctrine must be challenged and refuted and these men, if they refuse to repent, exposed for their error.

Steven and Joe, I am perfectly willing for the two of you to join forces in the debate. In fact, why not invite Mike Willis to assist? I do not care if you include Ron Halbrook, Weldon Warnock, etc. (Mike refuses to debate me one on one.) We can work out the logistics later. Since www.bibletruths.net has wide exposure, I would want it published there and you could publish it to your sites, as well. There are probably others who would want to publish the debate. Perhaps we can even find a paper magazine that will also publish the debate.

Here are my proposed propositions:

“The scriptures teach (NT) that there is only one cause for divorce (performed by the innocent mate) and that cause is the fornication of the guilty mate, while the marriage is in tact.”

Affirm:  Don Martin

Deny:  Steven J. Wallace, Joe Price?

Let’s do something a little different and have the second worded:

“Being mentally and emotionally abused, bills run up, and spiritually discouraged by a mate is scriptural reason to divorce the mate.”

Affirm: Steven J. Wallace, Joe Price?

Deny: Don Martin

Steven and Joe, we can fine turn the propositions, but let’s have your permission and agreement. O.K.? These many readers will serve as witnesses. (2-28-07)

“Let’s All Agree To Disagree”

By Don Martin

Back in the seventies, some among us warned that with the introduction and devoted promotion of the new Ecumenical Movement that claimed to be the fulfillment of Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17: 21, many within the Lord’s church would be persuaded and unity-in-diversity would become common, even the standard among God’s people. It has happened! As it was pointed out then, so we echo the same truth today that the unity among God’s people for which Jesus prayed in the shadow of the cross was and is based on the mutual belief and acceptance of the word (John 17: 14, 17-21, 2 John 9-11).

In my current polygamy/proper interpretive method debate, I was reminded of the above. In the below quotation, one of my disputants is addressing another who posted regarding polygamy being a sin. This man who posted to the list publishing the debate did use the word “opinion” in his post, in an apparent effort to be humble, and my disputant is addressing this matter. Notice his thinking, rational, and modus operandi and the, “Let’s all agree to disagree” mentality:

“Considering the beginning of your post, after the definitions, it seems you put all of this in the realm of opinion about polygamy and marriage. When you put it that way, brother, you get me right in the same boat with you in most effective ways we would approach the polygamous man today.

I would not tell him he is sinning by having several wives because I could not... Some folks call a lot of things sin that are never addressed as sin, making up all sorts of rules to go along with their preferences, so as to bind their personal standards as law on others.... I can respect your opinion without taking it as my own, as you can do with mine. Still we are at peace and loving toward one another in the bonds of peace which are found in Christ Jesus.”

I have been debating the marriage, divorce, and marriage to another matter almost assiduously for about ten years. We are now seeing another wave of graduated error emerging: Polygamy tolerance among those claiming to be preachers of the gospel. Well, why not? Some could not tell when a person was married or divorced, due to their floating and nebulous ideas about what constituted marriage and/or divorce.  Seven years ago, I debated a respected preacher who maintained that two Christians conjugally living together without what most think of as marriage was not sin and that the elders where they were members had no right to say anything to them. He did not even contend for a common law marriage circumstance. “A marriage license has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not two people are married,” said he.

I have debated a number who have no concept of when divorce occurs. I recall one woman whom I was counseling who claimed her husband had committed adultery, all of a sudden informed me that she had a date and had begun dating. I emailed her back and asked her how she had fulfilled her state law requirements pertaining to the civil dissolution of her marriage so fast (it had only been about a month). Her reply was, “I failed to tell you that I have also been talking to brethren....(all prominent preachers in the church) and they told me, ‘It is o.k. that you go ahead and start dating, the civil divorcement has nothing to do with biblical divorcement. When you left is house, you were biblically divorced at that point in time.’” (See the addendum.)

One wave of divorce errors involved the multiple causes for divorce doctrine. I only knew of a few who taught multiple causes for divorce at the time and even one of them, Mike Willis, did not  want his teaching publicly addressed (he taught it publicly, though). As a result of the deterioration of marriage in our society and the problems now seen in many local churches, more have come out of their closets, advocating multiple causes for divorce, even financial problems and emotional distress, which they interpret as “hindering one who is a Christian.” Some of them are heard saying, “We are not advocating marriage to another, just different causes for divorce.” These men know as well as I do that just about all of these people divorcing for causes other than fornication will marry another (Matt. 19: 9). What these men are not now telling is that many of them, if not all, have beliefs that will even allow these divorcing people to marry another later, while they have a living mate. Another preacher just recently announced his allegiance to the multiple causes for divorce movement, Steven J. Wallace.

While some men do not teach multiple causes for divorce, they mix and mingle with those who do. Connie Adams is a good example of this unity-in-diversity about which I am writing. Connie has become more and more involved in a working relationship with Mike Willis (now famous for his multiple causes for divorce doctrine) and others who also teach the same, all of them happily involved in the workings of the Guardian of Truth Foundation. I predicted some time ago that the Guardian of Truth Foundation would become a primary promoter of the multiple causes for divorce doctrine and such has happened. Such foundations in which Christians come together to corporately preach the gospel are believed “untouchable” and can basically teach and do what they desire because, “We are not a local church.” Hence, such entities have historically been a major source of the injection of false doctrine into the Lord’s church.

“Let’s all agree to disagree,” this is what my disputant in the polygamy debate says. I should not have any problems with him because he says that I must accept John and his five wives with whom John is conjugally living and because he accepts them (as long as civil law does not condemn them). He has no serious problem with John, his problem is with me because I maintain that polygamy is a sin and I cannot fellowship one in polygamy. One of the first to openly voice strong opposition to my teaching on multiple causes for divorce was Joe Price. He was not openly advocating what his buddy Mike Willis was teaching, but, “Don, you are causing trouble by teaching against multiple causes for divorce and you must stop this,” this was in the main his and other’s thinking (see my exchange with Joe Price in www.bibletruths.net, go to the Polemic Exchange section. Joe later agreed with the multiple cause doctrine).

No, we do not need to learn how to, “Let’s all agree to disagree” not in matters of doctrine. What we need to learn is, “Let’s all agree to agree on the teaching of God’s word and to live and teach it without compromise!” There is no end to the, “Let’s agree to disagree,” it soon allows for all sorts of error on marriage and divorce, as seen, even the allowance of polygamy and the existence of church like organizations doing the work God has assigned to his church through their own oversight and with their own treasury (I Tim. 3: 15).

Addendum:  While I do not teach that in the case of marriage or the converse, divorce, applicable civil protocol is within and of itself marriage or divorce, respectively, I certainly teach that civil protocol is part of each. Society in general has had such civil procedure in place, one reason to establish intent, fact, and record. Without such, there is utter chaos. To charge as some have, “You teach the race to the court house doctrine” is totally false, prejudicial, and deflective. (2-27-07)

http://www.truthmagazine.com/webpdf/Untildeath_Rader.PDF (2-27-07)

Hi Jeff!

Thanks SO much for calling last night! Steve said he felt MUCH better after talking with you. We appreciate SO much your words of encouragement – especially knowing that y’all have been through some VERY difficult times because of your stand for the truth!

Take care and, if you don’t mind, we may be calling on your for advice or encouragement again as we work through this ordeal. Please tell Cara, Andy and Ben (if you think of it when you talk with him) that we send our greetings. (2-23-07)

Thanks, Jeff! I have forwarded the articles. Yes, I think they will answer whatever it was he was trying to ask. I am not sure if it was a straightforward question or an attempt to be facetious!

I appreciate your taking the time to send them!

Give the family my love! (2-23-07)

Jeff,

How would you respond to the question below? One of the people on my mailing list responded “thusly” to your article! I have to admit that I don’t know exactly what he is going for here… Maybe you do?????

Thanks, (2-22-07)

Hi Jeff!

Thank you so much for your words of encouragement! It REALLY helps to hear from others who have been through hard times, too…

…Thanks again for your offer of help and please continue to keep us in your prayers as we do you. (2-21-06)

Very good article, Jeff! Succinct and powerful! Of course, we know where the power is—in the Word! Those who stick to the Word and quit adding and taking away from it stand on the Rock and not the sand. I will definitely share this…

Thanks for the article. I like it a lot… (2-21-07)

Thank you for your website updates. I don’t know if you know this or not, but … is our home email address for ... We met you once or twice in Rapid City, SD… Again, thanks for the updates. (2-19-07)

Hi Jeff,

… here. Hope this finds you doing well. We are fine here – putting up with a cold and snowy Feb., but the rest of our winter has been mild.

A few months ago, you sent me an email address of a preacher in Indiana that might be willing to do a Gospel Meeting for us. I can’t remember his name. Our computer crashed, so I lost your original email and was wondering if you could send it again. Sorry for the bother.

… says to tell you hello.  (2-13-07)

Jeff:

Great job on the “Then Vs. Now” material. (2-2-07)

Jeff, please note my new e-mail address as of this week. Thanks. (2-1-07)

I am forwarding articles as fast as my little fingers will type…

I appreciate these articles. It just irks me that these men are doing so much damage with their theories. I think these people are diligently trying to find answers, and instead, they are finding false hope…

Thanks, as always, for your time and effort! I will let you know what happens.

In love, (1-30-07)

Jeff,

A couple has shown up at … (and has tried to show up at some other places around as well.) They have one of those tough marriage/divorce/remarriage situations where it is hard to get the details of EXACTLY what happened…

…It makes me ill that T. H.’s “doctrine” is doing so much damage, and that people who are honestly seeking the truth are swayed by it. I don’t have to ask you how you feel about it….

All my best, (1-30-07)

Jeff,

Hope you all are well. How’s the work there?

I’ve finally gotten moving a bit on writing some things about this multiple-causes